Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
MG Man wrote:one eye, can you cite scientific papers proving the ark works? I'd love to read any peer-reviewed work on the subject
matr1x wrote:timelapse wrote:That God sounds like a woman.Making huge decisions based purely off emotionsmatr1x wrote:Wait, to regret is to admit to making a mistake. This goes against the idea that God is perfect.
God is an idiot
For real. Angry if you do something with your free will. Sounds just like a woman
You can't be trying to preach to me with KJV...bluefete wrote:matr1x wrote:timelapse wrote:That God sounds like a woman.Making huge decisions based purely off emotionsmatr1x wrote:Wait, to regret is to admit to making a mistake. This goes against the idea that God is perfect.
God is an idiot
For real. Angry if you do something with your free will. Sounds just like a woman
You two will be singing a very different tune just before you close your eyes for the very last time.
Isaiah 55:8-9
New King James Version
8 “For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord.
9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts.
bluefete wrote:MG Man wrote:one eye, can you cite scientific papers proving the ark works? I'd love to read any peer-reviewed work on the subject
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 180950385/
https://soundcloud.com/university-of-le ... /noahs-ark
https://www.businessinsider.com/scienti ... ble-2014-4
timelapse wrote:You can't be trying to preach to me with KJV...bluefete wrote:matr1x wrote:timelapse wrote:That God sounds like a woman.Making huge decisions based purely off emotionsmatr1x wrote:Wait, to regret is to admit to making a mistake. This goes against the idea that God is perfect.
God is an idiot
For real. Angry if you do something with your free will. Sounds just like a woman
You two will be singing a very different tune just before you close your eyes for the very last time.
Isaiah 55:8-9
New King James Version
8 “For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord.
9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts.
I offended.
bluefete wrote:MG Man wrote:one eye, can you cite scientific papers proving the ark works? I'd love to read any peer-reviewed work on the subject
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 180950385/
https://soundcloud.com/university-of-le ... /noahs-ark
https://www.businessinsider.com/scienti ... ble-2014-4
timelapse wrote:https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog/a-flood-of-myths-and-stories/
While we on the topic of floods and arks.Christianity is the johnny-come-lately in the dance
MG Man wrote:bluefete wrote:MG Man wrote:one eye, can you cite scientific papers proving the ark works? I'd love to read any peer-reviewed work on the subject
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 180950385/
https://soundcloud.com/university-of-le ... /noahs-ark
https://www.businessinsider.com/scienti ... ble-2014-4
I didn't listen to the sound cloud clip, but the other two are not peer-reviewed papers. It's basically an extra credit course for students to do
Furthermore, it simply concludes an empty box would in fact float. The paper draws no conclusions about the logistics of how many animals could actually fit, and based o their sheep gauge (rather ironic unit of measure), it's inconclusive, and does not factor the sheer mass of supplies needed to sustain every living critter on the boat
Not also, the study makes the distinction between a floating wooden box and a seaworthy vessel
So yeah a big wooden box floats, but nothing more
bluefete wrote:MG Man wrote:bluefete wrote:MG Man wrote:one eye, can you cite scientific papers proving the ark works? I'd love to read any peer-reviewed work on the subject
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 180950385/
https://soundcloud.com/university-of-le ... /noahs-ark
https://www.businessinsider.com/scienti ... ble-2014-4
I didn't listen to the sound cloud clip, but the other two are not peer-reviewed papers. It's basically an extra credit course for students to do
Furthermore, it simply concludes an empty box would in fact float. The paper draws no conclusions about the logistics of how many animals could actually fit, and based o their sheep gauge (rather ironic unit of measure), it's inconclusive, and does not factor the sheer mass of supplies needed to sustain every living critter on the boat
Not also, the study makes the distinction between a floating wooden box and a seaworthy vessel
So yeah a big wooden box floats, but nothing more
You asked a very good question about the ability of the ark to float. But I find it most interesting how quickly you downplayed the findings of the students.
The link below answers the questions you asked above.
Yet when we look at all these anti-Ark arguments, we note a conspicuous lack of scholarly response to most of them, at least in any kind of concerted manner. Indeed, there never before has been a modern systematic evaluation of the alleged difficulties surrounding Noah's Ark.
https://www.icr.org/article/resource-fo ... noahs-ark/
MG Man wrote:comes back to peer-reviewed research papers
Added to that, citing evidence for creation from a creationist source brings us back to the Napkin Religion
bluefete wrote:MG Man wrote:comes back to peer-reviewed research papers
Added to that, citing evidence for creation from a creationist source brings us back to the Napkin Religion
Ignoring the facts again. LOL.
But there has been very little peer-reviewed, double blinded studies on how the ark worked from a flotation perspective.
But there have been peer reviewed studies on other aspects of the ark.
Mammalian Collection on Noah's Ark: The Effects of Beauty, Brain and Body Size
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic ... ne.0063110
MG Man wrote:bluefete wrote:MG Man wrote:comes back to peer-reviewed research papers
Added to that, citing evidence for creation from a creationist source brings us back to the Napkin Religion
Ignoring the facts again. LOL.
But there has been very little peer-reviewed, double blinded studies on how the ark worked from a flotation perspective.
But there have been peer reviewed studies on other aspects of the ark.
Mammalian Collection on Noah's Ark: The Effects of Beauty, Brain and Body Size
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic ... ne.0063110
what facts did I ignore?
bluefete wrote:MG Man wrote:bluefete wrote:MG Man wrote:comes back to peer-reviewed research papers
Added to that, citing evidence for creation from a creationist source brings us back to the Napkin Religion
Ignoring the facts again. LOL.
But there has been very little peer-reviewed, double blinded studies on how the ark worked from a flotation perspective.
But there have been peer reviewed studies on other aspects of the ark.
Mammalian Collection on Noah's Ark: The Effects of Beauty, Brain and Body Size
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic ... ne.0063110
what facts did I ignore?
Until someone decides to fully refute the arguments made bout the ark and its ability to float, we will have to go with those who have actually done some work on it.
Unfortunately for you, at this time, that only seems to be the "believers".
I remember when Habit7 use to run rings around you, yet still Habit7 could not answer me when I asked him for proof of the Bible stories.Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:bluefete wrote:MG Man wrote:bluefete wrote:MG Man wrote:comes back to peer-reviewed research papers
Added to that, citing evidence for creation from a creationist source brings us back to the Napkin Religion
Ignoring the facts again. LOL.
But there has been very little peer-reviewed, double blinded studies on how the ark worked from a flotation perspective.
But there have been peer reviewed studies on other aspects of the ark.
Mammalian Collection on Noah's Ark: The Effects of Beauty, Brain and Body Size
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic ... ne.0063110
what facts did I ignore?
Until someone decides to fully refute the arguments made bout the ark and its ability to float, we will have to go with those who have actually done some work on it.
Unfortunately for you, at this time, that only seems to be the "believers".
When making a claim, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
So it’s not up to someone to refute the claim nor is something fact until someone refutes it.
This goes for all claims.
Oho, you does hear me.So is just ignore you does be ignoring me then.I will stop inviting you.MG Man wrote:yup, because there's a man wearing a pink thong, swimming in my septic tank. This is fact. I have heard him shouting 'come to my poopie party' at 11:58 every thursday night
timelapse wrote:Oho, you does hear me.So is just ignore you does be ignoring me then.I will stop inviting you.MG Man wrote:yup, because there's a man wearing a pink thong, swimming in my septic tank. This is fact. I have heard him shouting 'come to my poopie party' at 11:58 every thursday night
You have been cancelled
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:bluefete wrote:MG Man wrote:bluefete wrote:MG Man wrote:comes back to peer-reviewed research papers
Added to that, citing evidence for creation from a creationist source brings us back to the Napkin Religion
Ignoring the facts again. LOL.
But there has been very little peer-reviewed, double blinded studies on how the ark worked from a flotation perspective.
But there have been peer reviewed studies on other aspects of the ark.
Mammalian Collection on Noah's Ark: The Effects of Beauty, Brain and Body Size
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic ... ne.0063110
what facts did I ignore?
Until someone decides to fully refute the arguments made bout the ark and its ability to float, we will have to go with those who have actually done some work on it.
Unfortunately for you, at this time, that only seems to be the "believers".
When making a claim, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
So it’s not up to someone to refute the claim nor is something fact until someone refutes it.
This goes for all claims.
None of those tuners have ever supplied Burden of Proof on the Bible storiesKasey wrote:Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:bluefete wrote:MG Man wrote:bluefete wrote:MG Man wrote:comes back to peer-reviewed research papers
Added to that, citing evidence for creation from a creationist source brings us back to the Napkin Religion
Ignoring the facts again. LOL.
But there has been very little peer-reviewed, double blinded studies on how the ark worked from a flotation perspective.
But there have been peer reviewed studies on other aspects of the ark.
Mammalian Collection on Noah's Ark: The Effects of Beauty, Brain and Body Size
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic ... ne.0063110
what facts did I ignore?
Until someone decides to fully refute the arguments made bout the ark and its ability to float, we will have to go with those who have actually done some work on it.
Unfortunately for you, at this time, that only seems to be the "believers".
When making a claim, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
So it’s not up to someone to refute the claim nor is something fact until someone refutes it.
This goes for all claims.
This 'Burden of Proof' concept has been in and out of this thread countless times since the days of Megadoc, DSpike, Habit7, and even Bluefete also was around that time too. But it seems he still does not get this concept.
Bad Dog wrote:The oldest bibles Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus are priceless. Scholars who have had the opportunities to study the Codices have identified almost 15,000 differences from today's KJV. I think that as we go along we make adjustments and tweak the things we like and eliminate the things we don't like. We even write new version and edit the new versions to newer versions. So is the original message lost?
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 217 guests